Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.108

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.153

-0.429, 0.173

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.040

0.144

-0.243, 0.322

0.783

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.311

0.207

-0.095, 0.718

0.135

Pseudo R square

0.010

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.272

17.3, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.385

-0.834, 0.674

0.835

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.164

0.275

-0.704, 0.375

0.552

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.835

0.397

0.057, 1.61

0.037

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.509

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.719

-1.07, 1.75

0.641

time_point

1st

2nd

0.739

0.466

-0.174, 1.65

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.26

0.672

-0.059, 2.58

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.187

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.264

-0.486, 0.550

0.904

time_point

1st

2nd

0.071

0.202

-0.325, 0.468

0.724

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.291

-0.246, 0.896

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.297

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.420

-0.478, 1.17

0.413

time_point

1st

2nd

0.328

0.295

-0.250, 0.906

0.268

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.546

0.425

-0.288, 1.38

0.201

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.262

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.371

-0.542, 0.910

0.620

time_point

1st

2nd

0.266

0.248

-0.219, 0.751

0.284

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.555

0.357

-0.144, 1.25

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.218

9.52, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.309

-0.997, 0.213

0.205

time_point

1st

2nd

0.029

0.247

-0.455, 0.513

0.908

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.857

0.356

0.159, 1.55

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.878

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.242

-3.72, 1.15

0.301

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.09

0.771

-2.60, 0.416

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.304

1.111

-2.48, 1.87

0.785

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.411

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.581

-1.15, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.318

0.398

-0.462, 1.10

0.426

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.419

0.574

-0.706, 1.54

0.466

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.728

-0.587, 2.27

0.249

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.036

0.496

-1.01, 0.935

0.942

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.755

0.714

-0.645, 2.16

0.292

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.648

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.916

-0.427, 3.16

0.136

time_point

1st

2nd

0.935

0.599

-0.238, 2.11

0.120

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.261

0.863

-1.43, 1.95

0.763

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.334

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.472

-0.573, 1.28

0.456

time_point

1st

2nd

0.410

0.287

-0.154, 0.973

0.156

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.155

0.415

-0.967, 0.658

0.710

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.547

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.774

-1.52, 1.52

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.707

0.489

-0.252, 1.67

0.151

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.007

0.706

-1.39, 1.38

0.992

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.633

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.895

-1.43, 2.07

0.721

time_point

1st

2nd

1.07

0.569

-0.048, 2.18

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.348

0.820

-1.96, 1.26

0.672

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.393

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.556

-0.329, 1.85

0.172

time_point

1st

2nd

0.786

0.396

0.010, 1.56

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.738

0.570

-0.380, 1.86

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.252

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.356

0.046, 1.44

0.038

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.156

0.253

-0.651, 0.339

0.539

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.490

0.364

-0.223, 1.20

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.287

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.405

-0.402, 1.19

0.334

time_point

1st

2nd

0.370

0.279

-0.177, 0.917

0.187

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.324

0.403

-0.465, 1.11

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.297

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.420

-0.127, 1.52

0.098

time_point

1st

2nd

0.268

0.272

-0.264, 0.801

0.324

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.304

0.392

-0.464, 1.07

0.439

Pseudo R square

0.018

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.542

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.766

-0.413, 2.59

0.157

time_point

1st

2nd

0.654

0.476

-0.278, 1.59

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.603

0.686

-0.741, 1.95

0.380

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.826

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.168

-3.50, 1.07

0.299

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.301

0.707

-1.69, 1.08

0.671

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.72

1.020

-4.72, -0.723

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.452

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.639

-0.244, 2.26

0.116

time_point

1st

2nd

0.405

0.387

-0.353, 1.16

0.296

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.411

0.558

-0.682, 1.50

0.462

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.366

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.517

-0.005, 2.02

0.052

time_point

1st

2nd

0.663

0.343

-0.010, 1.34

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.169

0.495

-0.800, 1.14

0.732

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.779

27.6, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.102

-0.143, 4.18

0.068

time_point

1st

2nd

1.07

0.668

-0.238, 2.38

0.111

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.567

0.963

-1.32, 2.45

0.557

Pseudo R square

0.021

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.141

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.200

-0.463, 0.319

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.134

0.182

-0.491, 0.222

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.084

0.262

-0.429, 0.596

0.749

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.310

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.438

-0.139, 1.58

0.101

time_point

1st

2nd

0.896

0.346

0.218, 1.57

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.796

0.499

-1.77, 0.181

0.112

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.381

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.538

-0.591, 1.52

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

0.926

0.394

0.154, 1.70

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.102

0.568

-1.22, 1.01

0.858

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.625

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.884

-0.549, 2.92

0.181

time_point

1st

2nd

1.82

0.659

0.531, 3.11

0.006

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.891

0.950

-2.75, 0.971

0.349

Pseudo R square

0.013

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.405

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.573

-0.595, 1.65

0.358

time_point

1st

2nd

0.942

0.386

0.186, 1.70

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.272

0.556

-1.36, 0.818

0.625

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.229

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.324

-0.643, 0.627

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.300

0.274

-0.237, 0.838

0.275

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.580

0.395

-0.194, 1.35

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.016

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.278

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.392

-0.857, 0.681

0.823

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.465

0.322

-1.10, 0.167

0.151

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.608

0.464

-1.52, 0.302

0.192

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.328

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.464

-0.685, 1.13

0.630

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.418

0.308

-1.02, 0.185

0.176

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.703

0.444

-1.57, 0.166

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.334

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.473

-1.01, 0.846

0.866

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.679

0.305

-1.28, -0.082

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.094

0.439

-0.955, 0.768

0.832

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.530

0.308

-1.13, 0.074

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.599

0.444

-1.47, 0.271

0.179

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.939

27.4, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.328

-2.05, 3.16

0.678

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.60

0.788

-3.14, -0.054

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.34

1.136

-3.57, 0.884

0.239

Pseudo R square

0.012

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(388) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(388) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32], t(388) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(388) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(388) = 65.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(388) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.38], t(388) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.06, 1.61], t(388) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.69, 30.68], t(388) = 58.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.75], t(388) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.65], t(388) = 1.59, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.58], t(388) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(388) = 62.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55], t(388) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47], t(388) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.90], t(388) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.60, 17.77], t(388) = 57.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.17], t(388) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.91], t(388) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.38], t(388) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(388) = 50.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(388) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.75], t(388) = 1.07, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.25], t(388) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.52, 10.38], t(388) = 45.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.21], t(388) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.51], t(388) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.16, 1.55], t(388) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(388) = 35.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.15], t(388) = -1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.42], t(388) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.87], t(388) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(388) = 53.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.13], t(388) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.10], t(388) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.54], t(388) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(388) = 47.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(388) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.94], t(388) = -0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = -6.19e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.16], t(388) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.39, 20.93], t(388) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 3.16], t(388) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.11], t(388) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.95], t(388) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(388) = 31.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(388) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.97], t(388) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.66], t(388) = -0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.20], t(388) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.84e-13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.52], t(388) = 2.38e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 9.84e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.67], t(388) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.44e-03, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.38], t(388) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.31, 22.79], t(388) = 34.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(388) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.18], t(388) = 1.88, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-6.87e-03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.26], t(388) = -0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.95], t(388) = 41.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.85], t(388) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [0.01, 1.56], t(388) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [2.33e-03, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.86], t(388) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.67, 13.66], t(388) = 52.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(388) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.34], t(388) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.20], t(388) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(388) = 58.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(388) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.92], t(388) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.11], t(388) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(388) = 41.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.52], t(388) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.80], t(388) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.07], t(388) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(388) = 53.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(388) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.59], t(388) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.95], t(388) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.26, 29.50], t(388) = 33.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.07], t(388) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.08], t(388) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-4.72, -0.72], t(388) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.95, 14.73], t(388) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.26], t(388) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.16], t(388) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.50], t(388) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(388) = 41.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-5.32e-03, 2.02], t(388) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.28e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-9.57e-03, 1.34], t(388) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.14], t(388) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.64, 30.69], t(388) = 37.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 4.18], t(388) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.38], t(388) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.45], t(388) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(388) = 90.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(388) = -0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22], t(388) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.60], t(388) = 0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(388) = 46.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(388) = 1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.22, 1.57], t(388) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.18], t(388) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(388) = 34.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(388) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [0.15, 1.70], t(388) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.04, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.01], t(388) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.74], t(388) = 44.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.92], t(388) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.53, 3.11], t(388) = 2.76, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.08, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.75, 0.97], t(388) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(388) = 46.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.65], t(388) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [0.19, 1.70], t(388) = 2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.82], t(388) = -0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.91, 14.81], t(388) = 62.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.63], t(388) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.11e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.84], t(388) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.35], t(388) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.34], t(388) = 42.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.68], t(388) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.17], t(388) = -1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.30], t(388) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(388) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.13], t(388) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.18], t(388) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.17], t(388) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(388) = 30.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.85], t(388) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.28, -0.08], t(388) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.77], t(388) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(388) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(388) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.07], t(388) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.27], t(388) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.13], t(388) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.05, 3.16], t(388) = 0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.14, -0.05], t(388) = -2.03, p = 0.043; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -5.14e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.88], t(388) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,252.668

1,264.597

-623.334

1,246.668

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,253.052

1,276.910

-620.526

1,241.052

5.616

3

0.132

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,916.658

1,928.588

-955.329

1,910.658

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,916.608

1,940.466

-952.304

1,904.608

6.051

3

0.109

ras_confidence

null

3

2,398.099

2,410.028

-1,196.049

2,392.099

ras_confidence

random

6

2,384.461

2,408.319

-1,186.231

2,372.461

19.638

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,635.061

1,646.990

-814.531

1,629.061

ras_willingness

random

6

1,637.075

1,660.933

-812.537

1,625.075

3.986

3

0.263

ras_goal

null

3

1,985.171

1,997.100

-989.585

1,979.171

ras_goal

random

6

1,980.406

2,004.264

-984.203

1,968.406

10.765

3

0.013

ras_reliance

null

3

1,875.687

1,887.616

-934.844

1,869.687

ras_reliance

random

6

1,869.632

1,893.490

-928.816

1,857.632

12.055

3

0.007

ras_domination

null

3

1,775.964

1,787.893

-884.982

1,769.964

ras_domination

random

6

1,769.997

1,793.855

-878.999

1,757.997

11.967

3

0.007

symptom

null

3

2,803.719

2,815.648

-1,398.859

2,797.719

symptom

random

6

2,803.371

2,827.229

-1,395.685

2,791.371

6.348

3

0.096

slof_work

null

3

2,228.035

2,239.964

-1,111.017

2,222.035

slof_work

random

6

2,230.167

2,254.025

-1,109.084

2,218.167

3.868

3

0.276

slof_relationship

null

3

2,404.694

2,416.623

-1,199.347

2,398.694

slof_relationship

random

6

2,406.363

2,430.221

-1,197.182

2,394.363

4.331

3

0.228

satisfaction

null

3

2,579.605

2,591.534

-1,286.803

2,573.605

satisfaction

random

6

2,576.881

2,600.739

-1,282.440

2,564.881

8.724

3

0.033

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,033.361

2,045.290

-1,013.681

2,027.361

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,036.170

2,060.028

-1,012.085

2,024.170

3.191

3

0.363

mhc_social

null

3

2,433.869

2,445.798

-1,213.935

2,427.869

mhc_social

random

6

2,435.911

2,459.769

-1,211.955

2,423.911

3.958

3

0.266

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,550.589

2,562.518

-1,272.295

2,544.589

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,551.580

2,575.438

-1,269.790

2,539.580

5.009

3

0.171

resilisnce

null

3

2,219.184

2,231.113

-1,106.592

2,213.184

resilisnce

random

6

2,204.832

2,228.690

-1,096.416

2,192.832

20.352

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,856.469

1,868.398

-925.234

1,850.469

social_provision

random

6

1,853.511

1,877.369

-920.756

1,841.511

8.958

3

0.030

els_value_living

null

3

1,950.985

1,962.914

-972.493

1,944.985

els_value_living

random

6

1,948.014

1,971.872

-968.007

1,936.014

8.972

3

0.030

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,962.181

1,974.110

-978.091

1,956.181

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,959.358

1,983.216

-973.679

1,947.358

8.824

3

0.032

els

null

3

2,427.798

2,439.727

-1,210.899

2,421.798

els

random

6

2,422.663

2,446.521

-1,205.332

2,410.663

11.135

3

0.011

social_connect

null

3

2,762.175

2,774.104

-1,378.088

2,756.175

social_connect

random

6

2,748.494

2,772.353

-1,368.247

2,736.494

19.681

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,275.458

2,287.387

-1,134.729

2,269.458

shs_agency

random

6

2,272.975

2,296.833

-1,130.488

2,260.975

8.483

3

0.037

shs_pathway

null

3

2,137.753

2,149.682

-1,065.877

2,131.753

shs_pathway

random

6

2,130.245

2,154.103

-1,059.123

2,118.245

13.508

3

0.004

shs

null

3

2,708.942

2,720.871

-1,351.471

2,702.942

shs

random

6

2,702.809

2,726.667

-1,345.404

2,690.809

12.133

3

0.007

esteem

null

3

1,449.364

1,461.293

-721.682

1,443.364

esteem

random

6

1,454.687

1,478.545

-721.343

1,442.687

0.677

3

0.879

mlq_search

null

3

2,044.679

2,056.608

-1,019.339

2,038.679

mlq_search

random

6

2,042.708

2,066.567

-1,015.354

2,030.708

7.970

3

0.047

mlq_presence

null

3

2,190.768

2,202.697

-1,092.384

2,184.768

mlq_presence

random

6

2,186.743

2,210.601

-1,087.371

2,174.743

10.026

3

0.018

mlq

null

3

2,586.610

2,598.539

-1,290.305

2,580.610

mlq

random

6

2,582.207

2,606.065

-1,285.103

2,570.207

10.403

3

0.015

empower

null

3

2,218.065

2,229.994

-1,106.032

2,212.065

empower

random

6

2,214.845

2,238.703

-1,101.422

2,202.845

9.220

3

0.027

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,825.422

1,837.351

-909.711

1,819.422

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,820.473

1,844.331

-904.237

1,808.473

10.949

3

0.012

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,971.772

1,983.701

-982.886

1,965.772

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,965.119

1,988.977

-976.560

1,953.119

12.653

3

0.005

sss_affective

null

3

2,052.659

2,064.588

-1,023.329

2,046.659

sss_affective

random

6

2,044.708

2,068.566

-1,016.354

2,032.708

13.951

3

0.003

sss_behavior

null

3

2,056.862

2,068.791

-1,025.431

2,050.862

sss_behavior

random

6

2,052.002

2,075.860

-1,020.001

2,040.002

10.860

3

0.013

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,064.934

2,076.863

-1,029.467

2,058.934

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,055.474

2,079.332

-1,021.737

2,043.474

15.461

3

0.001

sss

null

3

2,855.236

2,867.165

-1,424.618

2,849.236

sss

random

6

2,844.574

2,868.432

-1,416.287

2,832.574

16.662

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.21

125

3.07 ± 1.21

0.404

0.136

recovery_stage_a

2nd

75

3.24 ± 1.18

-0.042

69

3.42 ± 1.17

-0.373

0.350

-0.194

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.04

125

17.80 ± 3.04

0.835

0.046

recovery_stage_b

2nd

75

17.72 ± 2.76

0.094

69

18.47 ± 2.72

-0.385

0.099

-0.433

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.69

125

30.02 ± 5.69

0.641

-0.115

ras_confidence

2nd

75

30.43 ± 5.04

-0.252

69

32.02 ± 4.96

-0.681

0.056

-0.544

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.09

125

11.66 ± 2.09

0.904

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

75

11.70 ± 1.92

-0.055

69

12.05 ± 1.90

-0.308

0.264

-0.277

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.32

125

17.53 ± 3.32

0.413

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

75

17.51 ± 2.99

-0.176

69

18.40 ± 2.95

-0.468

0.074

-0.477

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.93

125

13.33 ± 2.93

0.620

-0.118

ras_reliance

2nd

75

13.41 ± 2.61

-0.170

69

14.15 ± 2.57

-0.526

0.088

-0.474

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.44

125

9.56 ± 2.44

0.205

0.248

ras_domination

2nd

75

9.98 ± 2.27

-0.018

69

10.45 ± 2.25

-0.560

0.219

-0.294

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.82

125

30.21 ± 9.82

0.301

0.266

symptom

2nd

75

30.40 ± 8.62

0.226

69

28.81 ± 8.47

0.289

0.265

0.329

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.59

125

22.06 ± 4.59

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

75

22.38 ± 4.12

-0.126

69

22.79 ± 4.06

-0.293

0.547

-0.164

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.75

125

25.34 ± 5.75

0.249

-0.268

slof_relationship

2nd

75

24.47 ± 5.16

0.011

69

26.06 ± 5.08

-0.230

0.062

-0.510

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.24

125

21.03 ± 7.24

0.136

-0.363

satisfaction

2nd

75

20.60 ± 6.43

-0.248

69

22.23 ± 6.32

-0.317

0.126

-0.432

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.73

125

11.00 ± 3.73

0.456

-0.195

mhc_emotional

2nd

75

11.06 ± 3.27

-0.227

69

11.26 ± 3.20

-0.141

0.715

-0.109

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.12

125

15.13 ± 6.12

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

75

15.83 ± 5.40

-0.230

69

15.83 ± 5.30

-0.227

0.993

0.002

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.08

125

21.87 ± 7.08

0.721

-0.090

mhc_psychological

2nd

75

22.62 ± 6.25

-0.298

69

22.59 ± 6.14

-0.201

0.979

0.008

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.39

125

16.94 ± 4.39

0.172

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

75

16.96 ± 3.98

-0.314

69

18.46 ± 3.92

-0.608

0.024

-0.598

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.82

125

13.91 ± 2.82

0.038

-0.465

social_provision

2nd

75

13.01 ± 2.55

0.097

69

14.25 ± 2.51

-0.209

0.004

-0.772

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.20

125

17.15 ± 3.20

0.334

-0.222

els_value_living

2nd

75

17.13 ± 2.88

-0.210

69

17.85 ± 2.84

-0.393

0.134

-0.406

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.32

125

13.10 ± 3.32

0.098

-0.407

els_life_fulfill

2nd

75

12.68 ± 2.94

-0.157

69

13.68 ± 2.89

-0.335

0.040

-0.585

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.05

125

30.26 ± 6.05

0.157

-0.364

els

2nd

75

29.82 ± 5.32

-0.219

69

31.51 ± 5.22

-0.421

0.055

-0.567

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.23

125

26.66 ± 9.23

0.299

0.274

social_connect

2nd

75

27.58 ± 8.07

0.068

69

23.64 ± 7.92

0.682

0.003

0.888

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.05

125

14.85 ± 5.05

0.116

-0.416

shs_agency

2nd

75

14.25 ± 4.41

-0.167

69

15.66 ± 4.33

-0.337

0.052

-0.586

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.09

125

16.34 ± 4.09

0.052

-0.466

shs_pathway

2nd

75

15.99 ± 3.64

-0.307

69

17.17 ± 3.58

-0.385

0.051

-0.545

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.71

125

31.18 ± 8.71

0.068

-0.481

shs

2nd

75

30.24 ± 7.61

-0.256

69

32.82 ± 7.47

-0.391

0.041

-0.617

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.58

125

12.73 ± 1.58

0.719

0.061

esteem

2nd

75

12.67 ± 1.52

0.114

69

12.68 ± 1.51

0.043

0.963

-0.010

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.46

125

15.08 ± 3.46

0.101

-0.326

mlq_search

2nd

75

15.26 ± 3.21

-0.405

69

15.18 ± 3.18

-0.045

0.886

0.035

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.26

125

13.62 ± 4.26

0.389

-0.185

mlq_presence

2nd

75

14.08 ± 3.88

-0.370

69

14.44 ± 3.83

-0.329

0.574

-0.145

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.99

125

28.70 ± 6.99

0.181

-0.283

mlq

2nd

75

29.33 ± 6.40

-0.435

69

29.63 ± 6.32

-0.222

0.783

-0.070

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.53

125

19.38 ± 4.53

0.358

-0.217

empower

2nd

75

19.79 ± 4.05

-0.387

69

20.05 ± 3.99

-0.275

0.702

-0.105

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.56

125

14.35 ± 2.56

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

75

14.66 ± 2.42

-0.170

69

15.23 ± 2.40

-0.498

0.156

-0.324

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.10

125

11.70 ± 3.10

0.823

0.043

ismi_discrimation

2nd

75

11.33 ± 2.91

0.225

69

10.63 ± 2.88

0.519

0.150

0.337

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.67

125

10.62 ± 3.67

0.630

-0.116

sss_affective

2nd

75

9.98 ± 3.27

0.216

69

9.50 ± 3.22

0.578

0.376

0.247

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.74

125

10.10 ± 3.74

0.866

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

75

9.50 ± 3.31

0.354

69

9.32 ± 3.25

0.403

0.751

0.091

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.210

sss_cognitive

2nd

75

8.18 ± 3.32

0.273

69

7.99 ± 3.26

0.582

0.728

0.098

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.50

125

29.84 ± 10.50

0.678

-0.112

sss

2nd

75

27.69 ± 9.14

0.324

69

26.90 ± 8.97

0.596

0.601

0.160

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(351.37) = -0.83, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(389.87) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.57)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(301.77) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.68)

2st

t(385.18) = 1.65, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.65)

ras_confidence

1st

t(290.60) = 0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)

2st

t(378.25) = 1.91, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.23)

ras_willingness

1st

t(311.08) = 0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)

2st

t(388.03) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(299.59) = 0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.17)

2st

t(384.19) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.86)

ras_reliance

1st

t(293.68) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)

2st

t(380.68) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.59)

ras_domination

1st

t(318.38) = -1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.22)

2st

t(389.18) = 1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.21)

symptom

1st

t(286.51) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.16)

2st

t(374.24) = -1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-4.39 to 1.21)

slof_work

1st

t(296.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.14)

2st

t(382.54) = 0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.75)

slof_relationship

1st

t(295.81) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(382.10) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.27)

satisfaction

1st

t(291.46) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)

2st

t(378.97) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.72)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(284.89) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(372.35) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.26)

mhc_social

1st

t(288.21) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)

2st

t(376.02) = -0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(288.68) = 0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)

2st

t(376.48) = -0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.00)

resilisnce

1st

t(301.24) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(384.95) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.79)

social_provision

1st

t(300.61) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.45)

2st

t(384.67) = 2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.06)

els_value_living

1st

t(297.15) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.19)

2st

t(382.90) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.65)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(290.43) = 1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.52)

2st

t(378.10) = 2.06, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.96)

els

1st

t(286.56) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.60)

2st

t(374.29) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.42)

social_connect

1st

t(284.38) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.51 to 1.08)

2st

t(371.73) = -2.95, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.32)

shs_agency

1st

t(284.37) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.27)

2st

t(371.72) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.85)

shs_pathway

1st

t(293.01) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.03)

2st

t(380.19) = 1.95, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.36)

shs

1st

t(284.50) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.15 to 4.18)

2st

t(371.87) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.11 to 5.06)

esteem

1st

t(343.93) = -0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(389.97) = 0.05, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(316.24) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(388.91) = -0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st

t(304.86) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.52)

2st

t(386.35) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.63)

mlq

1st

t(307.39) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.92)

2st

t(387.13) = 0.28, p = 0.783, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.38)

empower

1st

t(294.53) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.66)

2st

t(381.26) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.57)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(328.74) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.63)

2st

t(389.87) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.36)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(322.95) = -0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(389.59) = -1.44, p = 0.150, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.25)

sss_affective

1st

t(292.93) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.14)

2st

t(380.13) = -0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.58)

sss_behavior

1st

t(290.11) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(377.82) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.90)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(291.00) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(378.59) = -0.35, p = 0.728, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.89)

sss

1st

t(282.69) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.17)

2st

t(369.52) = -0.52, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.18)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(190.97) = 2.35, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.65)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(166.11) = 2.34, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.24)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(161.03) = 4.12, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (1.04 to 2.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(170.43) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(165.11) = 2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.48)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(162.42) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(173.88) = 3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.39)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(159.19) = -1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(163.71) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(163.39) = 1.40, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.74)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(161.41) = 1.92, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.03 to 2.43)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(158.46) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.85)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(159.95) = 1.37, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.71)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(160.16) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(165.87) = 3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.71 to 2.34)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(165.58) = 1.27, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.85)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(164.00) = 2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.27)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(160.95) = 2.03, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.13)

els

1st vs 2st

t(159.21) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.23)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(158.23) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-4.48 to -1.57)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(158.23) = 2.03, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.61)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(162.12) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(158.28) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.01)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(186.82) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.32)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(172.86) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(167.53) = 2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(168.71) = 1.36, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.28)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(162.80) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.46)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(178.94) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(176.09) = -3.21, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.41)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(162.08) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.49)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(160.81) = -2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.15)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(161.21) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.76 to -0.50)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(157.47) = -3.59, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.56 to -1.32)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(185.24) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.32)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(163.37) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.38)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(158.88) = 1.58, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.66)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(167.17) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(162.49) = 1.11, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.91)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(160.12) = 1.07, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.76)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(170.21) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.52)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(157.26) = -1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.43)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(161.25) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(160.97) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(159.23) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(156.61) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(157.93) = 1.44, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.67)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(158.12) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.19)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(163.15) = 1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.57)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(162.90) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.34)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(161.50) = 1.32, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.92)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(158.81) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.81)

els

1st vs 2st

t(157.28) = 1.37, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(156.41) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.10)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(156.41) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.17)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(159.85) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.34)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(156.46) = 1.60, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.39)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(181.58) = -0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.22)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(169.32) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.58)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(164.62) = 2.35, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.71)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(165.65) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.13)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(160.45) = 2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.70)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(174.66) = 1.09, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.84)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(172.15) = -1.44, p = 0.304, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.17)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(159.81) = -1.36, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(158.69) = -2.23, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.28 to -0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(159.04) = -1.72, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(155.74) = -2.03, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.16 to -0.04)

Plot

Clinical significance